Purdue football is clearly improving. No, seriously

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. Time to leap?

"The first year it sleeps, the second year it creeps, the third year it leaps."

It's one of my favorite quotes from one of football's more quotable coaches (ULM's Todd Berry), and while it is purely anecdotal, it's also catchy.

And sometimes it's perfectly descriptive. A team struggles dramatically with a new coach in his first year (the Year Zero effect) then starts to figure out what it's doing in his second year. And in his third year, with a two-deep made of either seniors or his own signees, the program takes a healthy step forward.

There are about 100 different obstacles that can throw this happy train off course along the way -- injuries, costly recruiting misses, coaching defections, bad luck, random personnel issues, simple poor coaching -- but in theory, this is what you want.

It's what we've seen so far from Purdue and Darrell Hazell. Hazell's disastrous 2013, his first after leaving Kent State, was the quintessential Year Zero. After ranking between 80th and 87th in the F/+ ratings for three consecutive years under Danny Hope, Purdue looked for a fresh start with Hazell, and it began with Purdue sinking to 101st with a 1-11 record.

The Boilermakers were young and awful in 2013, but they made well-defined progress last year. You might not have noticed because the progress stopped when injuries ravaged the two-deep, but for the first two-thirds of the year, Purdue was playing at a top-60 or top-70 level. It's impressive, considering the level of youth.

Sleeping in year one? Check. Creeping in year two? Check. So now comes the leap ... in theory. If the talent and coaching are where they need to be, then the experience could pay off. Purdue boasts two experienced quarterbacks, an explosive No. 1 receiver, a loaded offensive line, and a patient defense filled with sophomores and juniors. It might take two leaps to get Purdue back to respectability, especially with a schedule that features six teams from last year's F/+ top 40, but barring land mines, Purdue appears to be on the right course.

Compare that to what I said last year.

Here are some teams that ranked ahead of Purdue (No. 157) in Jeff Sagarin's inclusive FBS/FCS rankings: Montana State, Samford, Murray State, Brown, South Carolina State, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Princeton.

On the bright side, the Boilermakers did rank ahead of four Ivy League schools, though Yale and Penn got awfully close.

Again, maybe this all ends fine. Maybe Purdue fans end up laughing about how poorly this went before the rebuild. Maybe. But unlike Willie Taggart at USF, Hazell isn't lapping his conference competition in recruiting. If there's a way out, it's going to take quite a bit of climbing.

Granted, Harvard (No. 95) remained ahead of Purdue (No. 99) in Sagarin's rankings last year, but take that, Dartmouth (No. 138) and Princeton (No. 213)!

Hazell isn't recruiting a ton of blue-chippers, but he's putting pieces together that can get Purdue back in the top 40. We'll worry about whether he can do more once he gets there. And I'm much more confident in him getting there than I was 12 months ago.

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 3-9 | Adj. Record: 6-6 | Final F/+ Rk: 84
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Adj. Scoring Margin	Win Expectancy
30-Aug	Western Michigan	56	43-34	W	70%	12.5	43%
6-Sep	Central Michigan	85	17-38	L	32%	-10.7	5%
13-Sep	vs. Notre Dame	34	14-30	L	52%	1.4	23%
20-Sep	Southern Illinois	NR	35-13	W	87%	26.8	100%
27-Sep	Iowa	63	10-24	L	17%	-21.9	1%
4-Oct	at Illinois	78	38-27	W	64%	8.7	75%
11-Oct	Michigan State	11	31-45	L	61%	6.7	12%
18-Oct	at Minnesota	37	38-39	L	65%	9.1	48%
1-Nov	at Nebraska	30	14-35	L	23%	-17.6	0%
8-Nov	Wisconsin	25	16-34	L	15%	-24.2	0%
22-Nov	Northwestern	71	14-38	L	20%	-19.8	3%
29-Nov	at Indiana	88	16-23	L	41%	-5.0	26%

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	24.5	92	26.6	53
Points Per Game	23.8	98	31.7	99

2. Just too many injuries

[O]ver the last five games, Purdue hasn't been terrible. The Boilers haven't been good, but they had Notre Dame down late in the first half and were within 24-14 heading into the fourth. They disposed of Southern Illinois like you're supposed to. They had the ball down seven points to Iowa in the fourth quarter. They ran all over Illinois in a road win. And they had the ball down seven points to Michigan State in the fourth quarter.

They're improving. If State fancies a national title run, the Spartans need to dispose of the 70th-ranked team better than this. But "You tried to lose to PURDUE" doesn't have quite the same ring. Purdue's not terrible.

I noticed the Boilermakers' improvement just in time for the collapse. In five of their first eight games, they played at a level of the the 60th percentile (approximately the top 50) or higher. Again, for a team that ranked in the triple digits the year before, this was an accomplishment.

There were duds -- no Big Ten team should lose by three touchdowns to CMU, and while Purdue stayed close to Iowa, Iowa was clearly superior. But this team had taken steps. And then it took steps backward.

• Average Percentile Performance (first 5 games): 52% (record: 2-3)
• Average Percentile Performance (next 3 games): 63% (record: 1-2)
• Average Percentile Performance (last 4 games): 25% (record: 0-4)

Injuries took apart the receiving corps and forced continuous shuffling among the defense's back seven. Combine that with ongoing quarterback inconsistency, and you've got a prime recipe for a late-season fade. After averaging 7.1 yards per play and 36 points per game against Illinois, Michigan State, and Minnesota, the Boilermakers averaged 4.3 and 15 in November.

The defense had already begun to fade by the fifth game. After thumping Illinois and fighting tooth-and-nail with Michigan State and Minnesota, Purdue lost by an average score of 33-15 over the final four.

There's plenty of work to be done. But the promise of October was undeniable.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.83	79	IsoPPP+	85.3	103
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	37.1%	110	Succ. Rt. +	100.7	69
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	33.8	125	Def. FP+	95.9	115
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.9	104	Redzone S&P+	87.0	108
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	21.4		ACTUAL	24	+2.6

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	111	97	76	103
RUSHING	73	56	43	61
PASSING	103	118	99	120
Standard Downs		93	74	91
Passing Downs		105	70	109

Q1 Rk	103	1st Down Rk	74
Q2 Rk	59	2nd Down Rk	111
Q3 Rk	83	3rd Down Rk	96
Q4 Rk	122

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2015 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Comp	Att	Yards	TD	INT	Comp Rate	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Austin Appleby	6'5, 229	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8604	144	272	1449	10	11	52.9%	12	4.2%	4.8
Danny Etling	6'2, 216	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8967	89	162	800	6	5	54.9%	11	6.4%	4.1
David Blough	6'1, 202	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8650
Elijah Sindelar	6'4, 200	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8733

3. Efficiency requires fewer mistakes

Darrell Hazell's hire of John Shoop as his coordinator raised a few eyebrows. The longtime NFL assistant had spent five years as North Carolina's O.C. from 2007-11, overseeing three decent offenses and two bad ones, and his first Purdue offense was abysmal.

With no play-makers to speak of and execution that wasn't good enough to offset the lack of explosiveness, Purdue averaged 4.6 yards per play in 2013. They scored a combined 60 points and averaged 6.9 yards per play against NIU and Indiana and failed to top 21 points or 5.0 yards per play in any of the other 10 games.

Granted, the full-season Off. S&P+ numbers ended up about the same in 2014, but you could see what Shoop wanted to do and what Purdue's strengths might be. Behind a decent line, the Purdue run game was reasonably efficient, and in Danny Anthrop, the Boilers had at least one vertical threat. Anthrop caught five passes for 106 yards against SIU and a combined 13 for 200 against Michigan State and Minnesota.

But when he went down (after catching four passes for 80 yards) against Nebraska, the Purdue offense fell apart. There was no other big-play threat, and opponents were able to gang up on the run.

Even with Anthrop healthy, the goal of Purdue's offense was to stretch the defense from sideline to sideline, making enough five-yard gains to lull the defense and pierce it deep. But while running backs Akeem Hunt and Raheem Mostert were dangerous in the open, Anthrop's injury highlighted what was already a problem: you can't have an efficiency attack when your quarterbacks are barely completing 50 percent and are throwing an interception for every 25 passes. And you can't have an efficiency attack when you're fumbling a lot.

Simple mistakes were Purdue's bugaboo. Danny Etling took too many sacks (6.4 percent sack rate) and threw too many picks (3.1 percent INT rate) considering he was averaging just 9.0 yards per completion. Etling got demoted, and Austin Appleby took fewer sacks, but he threw more picks (4.0 percent INT rate) and fumbled more while still averaging only 10.1 yards per completion. [Update: Etling transferred to LSU.]

Appleby appears likely to start, but redshirt freshman David Blough doesn't have to play like a blue-chipper to overtake him.

Losing Anthrop was a damaging blow, but you should be able to complete short passes with fewer mistakes. If experience leads to steadier quarterback play, this offense could take a nice step, even without leading rushing and receptions leader Hunt.

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Akeem Hunt	RB					172	952	6	5.5	7.9	34.3%	5	4
Raheem Mostert	RB					93	529	3	5.7	7.3	34.4%	3	2
Austin Appleby	QB	6'5, 229	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8604	49	292	5	6.0	8.4	36.7%	5	2
Keyante Green	RB	5'9, 219	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8547	27	199	0	7.4	11.4	33.3%	0	0
Danny Etling	QB	6'2, 216	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8967	22	84	3	3.8	3.7	36.4%	2	0
David Yancey	RB	5'10, 213	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8244
D.J. Knox	RB	5'7, 200	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8098
Markell Jones	RB	5'11, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8332
Richard Worship	RB	6'1, 235	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8439
Tario Fuller	RB	6'0, 190	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8359

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Akeem Hunt	RB					67	48	293	71.6%	16.4%	59.7%	4.4	-276	4.4	30.1
Danny Anthrop	WR	6'0, 191	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8140	62	38	616	61.3%	15.2%	56.5%	9.9	152	10.0	63.4
DeAngelo Yancey	WR	6'2, 223	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8298	51	12	147	23.5%	12.5%	54.9%	2.9	-46	2.9	15.1
Justin Sinz	TE					43	32	257	74.4%	10.5%	58.1%	6.0	-120	6.0	26.5
Cameron Posey	WR	6'1, 183	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8081	40	19	188	47.5%	9.8%	37.5%	4.7	-57	4.5	19.3
Gabe Holmes	TE					33	17	178	51.5%	8.1%	48.5%	5.4	-37	5.5	18.3
Gregory Phillips	WR	6'0, 191	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8005	25	10	151	40.0%	6.1%	68.0%	6.0	16	6.0	15.5
Raheem Mostert	RB					22	18	116	81.8%	5.4%	77.3%	5.3	-93	5.2	11.9
B.J. Knauf	WR					19	15	106	78.9%	4.6%	42.1%	5.6	-69	5.2	10.9
Trae Hart	WR	5'10, 168	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8317	17	9	80	52.9%	4.2%	47.1%	4.7	-33	4.5	8.2
Dolapo Macarthy	TE					13	7	70	53.8%	3.2%	53.8%	5.4	-18	5.2	7.2
Keyante Green	RB	5'9, 219	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8547	4	2	11	50.0%	1.0%	50.0%	2.8	-14	2.6	1.1
Dan Monteroso	WR	6'3, 192	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8233	3	1	4	33.3%	0.7%	33.3%	1.3	-10	0.8	0.4
Myles Norwood	WR	6'0, 170	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8337	2	0	0	0.0%	0.5%	50.0%	0.0	-3	0.0	0.0
Shane Mikesky	WR	6'4, 218	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8034
Bilal Marshall	WR	6'2, 195	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8642
Matt Burke	TE	6'6, 240	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8232
Anthony Mahoungou	WR	6'3, 200	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8556

4. Anthrop and the underneath guys

With the departure of Hunt and Raheem Mostert, Purdue boasts just 27 career running back carries. Keyante Green made the most of his opportunities -- he carried just 14 times in Big Ten play and gained 128 yards (9.1 per carry) -- but didn't earn many. And this spring, he finished second on the depth chart behind sophomore D.J. Knox, who boasts big-play potential but didn't see any touches last year.

Of course, the run is secondary to the pass in a Shoop offense. Even after going run-heavy over the last half of the season, Purdue still threw more than the national average on both standard downs and passing downs, and if the Boilers can throw, Shoop wants to. Running backs saw one target for about every three carries in 2014, and they are frequently used as safety valves.

But Purdue's success will hinge on big plays. Anthrop provided them midseason last year, but he needs help. At 2.9 yards per target, DeAngelo Yancey was perhaps the country's least productive No. 3 target, and few others stepped up.

There might be hope. Gregory Phillips did average 15.1 yards per catch (albeit with a 40 percent catch rate), and fellow sophomore Trae Hart caught a long touchdown in the spring game. And players like Cameron Posey and former mid-three-star recruits like Bilal Marshall and JUCO Anthony Mahoungou obviously still have time.

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	105.7	2.77	3.21	34.9%	79.5%	20.6%	115.0	4.4%	6.0%
Rank	47	90	73	104	3	82	46	57	40

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Robert Kugler	C	6'3, 294	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8587	31
Jordan Roos	RT	6'4, 312	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8650	18
Jason King	LG	6'4, 305	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8327	17
J.J. Prince	RT	6'6, 297	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7000	11
David Hedelin	LT	6'4, 298	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8747	7
Cameron Cermin	LT	6'5, 301	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8328	6
Jason Tretter	LG	6'6, 321	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7783	0
Corey Clements	LG	6'8, 420	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7900	0
Joey Warburg	RT	6'5, 289	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8166	0
David Hedelin	OL	6'4, 298	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8747	0
Kirk Barron	C	6'1, 305	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8292
Martesse Patterson	RG	6'3, 345	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8386
Matt McCann	OL	6'6, 305	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8563
Larry Wells	OL	6'8, 300	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8356
Michael Mendez	LT	6'4, 282	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7652

5. A damn strong line

There is hope up front. A pass-first offense cannot succeed if it can't pass (profound, I know), but the Purdue line went from horrible to solid in just one year and returns everybody from last year's two-deep. Purdue ranked 104th in Adj. Line Yards, 125th in power success rate, 120th in stuff rate, and 93rd in Adj. Sack Rate in 2013; with three sophomores in the starting lineup, those numbers improved to 47th, third, 82nd, and 46th, respectively.

This unit has size, experience, and a sudden track record.

(Quick note to Shoop, by the way: fat-guy touchdowns are all the rage, and let's just say you would suddenly become one of the most popular coordinators in the country if you were to dial up a tackle-eligible pass to your 6'8, 420-pounder, Corey Clements. I'm not going to let the fact that he is listed as a guard disrupt my fantasy.)

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	0.85	71	IsoPPP+	100.7	63
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	45.0%	104	Succ. Rt. +	98.5	74
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	31.3	36	Off. FP+	102.0	38
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.9	27	Redzone S&P+	109.9	30
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	19.4		ACTUAL	19.0	-0.4

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	82	66	76	63
RUSHING	93	83	95	79
PASSING	56	56	53	59
Standard Downs		65	71	73
Passing Downs		78	96	63

Q1 Rk	75	1st Down Rk	83
Q2 Rk	60	2nd Down Rk	62
Q3 Rk	105	3rd Down Rk	89
Q4 Rk	11

6. The patented bend-don't-break

While the offense showed promise, the defense improved top to bottom, from 83rd in Def. S&P+ in 2013 to 53rd. The Boilermakers weren't exciting, but they played sound ball, prevented big plays, and got effectively aggressive in the red zone.

This became more difficult to pull off as the injuries piled up, and wow, were there injuries -- senior linebackers Sean Robinson and Joe Gilliam missed a combined 14 games, safety Austin Logan missed nine, and only seven or eight regulars managed to play in all 12.

Still, after allowing 5.6 or more yards per play in five of the first eight games, Purdue did so in only one of the final four. The defense was both young and stable late, and that's encouraging.

With Hazell's background as a Jim Tressel guy (he was an Ohio State assistant from 2004-10), it stands to reason that a Hazell defense would favor fundamentals, and at its best, Purdue's defense was a bend-don't-break unit, one that limited explosive plays (169 plays of at least 10 yards, 46th in the country) and kept you out of the end zone in scoring opportunities. They made sound adjustments -- their best quarter was the fourth quarter, and not only because of garbage time -- and with help from a strong return game, they created decent field position.

Considering the youth, this was encouraging.

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	95.6	3.17	3.64	40.3%	67.3%	18.8%	87.5	2.9%	7.9%
Rank	84	97	94	84	64	73	90	107	55

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Ryan Russell	DE					12	36.0	5.4%	6.0	2.5	0	1	1	0
Jake Replogle	DT	6'5, 275	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8209	12	34.0	5.1%	11.0	3.5	0	1	0	0
Jalani Phillips	DE					12	27.0	4.0%	5.5	1.0	0	1	0	0
Gelen Robinson	DE	6'1, 250	So.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8599	11	17.0	2.5%	4.0	2.0	0	0	0	0
Ra'Zahn Howard	NG	6'3, 310	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8000	11	15.5	2.3%	1.0	1.0	0	1	0	0
Ryan Watson	NG	6'2, 298	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.9193	12	15.0	2.2%	5.5	4.0	0	0	0	0
Evan Panfil	DE	6'5, 262	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8216	12	7.0	1.0%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Michael Rouse III	DT	6'4, 301	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8276	5	4.0	0.6%	1.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Antoine Miles	DE	6'3, 236	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8389
John Strauser	DE	6'2, 270	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8059
Will Colmery	DT	6'5, 263	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8200
Eddy Wilson	DT	6'4, 270	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8225

7. Jake needs more from the fatmen

The Purdue secondary acquitted itself well; the Boilers ranked 56th in Passing S&P+ despite a limited pass rush, but until Purdue gets more from its front, the ceiling will be low.

In tackle Jake Replogle and pass rushing nose guard Ryan Watson (strangely, of Watson's 15 tackles, four were sacks, which makes him seem more like a rush end), Purdue has a couple of interesting play-makers, but it needs more. The end position was only decent and must now replace both starters, so there will be a lot of pressure on players like converted linebacker Gelen Robinson and junior Evan Panfil to produce. [Update: Robinson will miss 2-4 after an alcohol-related arrest.]

If they do, the interior positions could be sound with Replogle, Watson, and 2014 role players Ra'Zahn Howard and Michael Rouse III. Replogle is quick enough to play end, which might maximize the upside.

Steadier linebacker play could make the line look better. After both Sean Robinson and Joe Gilliam went down, Purdue handed the reins to two freshmen (Ja'Whaun Bentley and Danny Ezechukwu) and a sophomore (Jimmy Herman). This trio has size, athleticism and upside but was too young.

Aside from Watson and Rouse, by the way, every player I just mentioned is an underclassman. This front seven could be dynamite in 2016.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Ja'Whaun Bentley	MLB	6'2, 260	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8478	12	59.5	8.9%	3.5	0.0	1	1	0	0
Jimmy Herman	SLB	6'4, 230	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8335	10	42.0	6.3%	1.5	0.0	0	3	0	0
Danny Ezechukwu	WLB	6'2, 246	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8170	12	35.0	5.2%	3.0	1.5	1	1	2	0
Sean Robinson	MLB					6	34.5	5.1%	3.0	1.0	0	2	0	0
Collin Link	SLB					12	12.0	1.8%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Joe Gilliam	SLB					4	7.0	1.0%	1.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Andy James Garcia	WLB	6'0, 228	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8165	12	3.5	0.5%	0.0	0.0	0	0	1	0
Dezwan Polk-Campbell	LB	6'3, 212	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7957
Garrett Hudson	MLB	6'3, 240	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8147
Wyatt Cook	LB	6'3, 225	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8499
Markus Bailey	LB	6'1, 220	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8460
Sawyer Dawson	LB	6'2, 205	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8442

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Landon Feichter	FS					12	88.0	13.1%	2.5	0	5	3	1	0
Frankie Williams	CB/SS	5'9, 190	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8465	11	62.5	9.3%	1.5	1	3	7	0	0
Anthony Brown	CB	5'11, 190	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8224	12	47.5	7.1%	5.5	1.5	0	10	0	0
Taylor Richards	SS					10	38.0	5.7%	1	0	0	4	0	0
Antoine Lewis	CB					11	21.0	3.1%	1	1	0	4	2	0
Leroy Clark	SS	5'10, 190	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8431	12	20.0	3.0%	1	0	0	1	0	0
Austin Logan	S	6'0, 200	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8429	3	9.0	1.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Robert Gregory	FS	6'1, 219	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)	0.8880	10	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Da'Wan Hunte	CB	5'9, 183	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8131	5	1.5	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Evan Feichter	FS	6'0, 191	Jr.	NR	NR
Race Johnson	CB	5'11, 187	So.	NR	0.7000
Tim Cason	S	5'11, 195	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8488
Brandon Roberts	SS	5'11, 174	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8205
Evyn Cooper	S	6'2, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8398
Mike Little	CB	6'0, 170	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8382

8. A high-upside, low-downside secondary

It's an optimist-vs-pessimist situation. The optimist will see two physical cornerbacks in Frankie Williams and Anthony Brown and, in Leroy Clark, Austin Logan, and Robert Gregory, a trio of safeties with upside and at least a little bit of experience.

The pessimist will see that safeties Landon Feichter and Taylor Richards and corner Antoine Lewis are all gone; for a team dependent on preventing big plays, losing your three best safeties (Feichter and Richards, plus Williams if he's back at CB) is frightening.

If coordinator Greg Hudson finds the right cocktail for improving the pass rush, Williams and Brown (combined: seven tackles for loss, three picks, 17 break-ups last year) could make havoc plays on the outside. But one does have to worry about big plays if you've got aggressive corners being protected by green safeties.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Thomas Meadows	6'0, 182	Sr.	58	39.8	2	19	15	58.6%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Paul Griggs	6'1, 196	Sr.	36	53.2	8	2	22.2%
Ian MacDougall			23	60.4	11	1	47.8%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Paul Griggs	6'1, 196	Sr.	32-33	9-9	100.0%	7-11	63.6%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2015 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Raheem Mostert	KR			34	21.5	0
Akeem Hunt	KR			4	20.3	0
Frankie Williams	PR	5'9, 190	Sr.	11	15.9	0
Danny Anthrop	PR	6'0, 191	Sr.	3	12.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	77
Field Goal Efficiency	16
Punt Return Efficiency	13
Kick Return Efficiency	53
Punt Efficiency	111
Kickoff Efficiency	112
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	59

9. Simply woeful coverage

Paul Griggs is automatic inside of 40 yards, and in Frankie Williams, Purdue has one of the more dynamic punt returners in a conference loaded with dynamic punt returners.

But special teams is going to only be so much of a strength if kickoffs and punts are a drain on field position. Purdue allowed 11.4 yards per punt return, 12th in the conference, and while the Boilermakers allowed a healthier 19.8 yards per kick return (37th nationally), Griggs' kickoffs were short and inefficient. Purdue ranked in the triple digits in kickoff and punt efficiency, which meant that the bend-don't-break defense was already bending before a drive even started.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule
Date	Opponent	2014 F/+ Rk
6-Sep	at Marshall	17
12-Sep	Indiana State	NR
19-Sep	Virginia Tech	33
26-Sep	Bowling Green	98
3-Oct	at Michigan State	11
10-Oct	Minnesota	37
17-Oct	at Wisconsin	25
31-Oct	Nebraska	30
7-Nov	Illinois	78
14-Nov	at Northwestern	71
21-Nov	at Iowa	63
28-Nov	Indiana	88

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-15.9% (91)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	66 / 61
2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	-5 / -1.9
2014 TO Luck/Game	-1.3
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	16 (9, 7)
2014 Second-order wins (difference)	3.4 (-0.4)

10. The wrong schedule for a breakthrough

While a Todd Berry-esque "leap" might not be in the cards, I do expect Purdue to improve again. The depth and experience are stronger, and while there are plenty of question marks -- quarterback, turnovers, defensive end, safety -- there are fewer. Hazell is building slowly, and another year of growth could set the table for 2016.

Even with a decent leap, Purdue might come up short in bowl pursuit, as this schedule is a doozy. The Boilermakers play six teams that ranked 37th or better in F/+ last year and only two that ranked 90th or worse. There are four more in the No. 60-90 range, and last year's four weakest teams all come to West Lafayette, so if the Boilers execute well in close games (or just get lucky), perhaps they could eek out six wins.

Odds are good that they will improve into the 60s or so but finish around 4-8 or 5-7.

Still, that's improvement. When you bottom out like Purdue did, it's hard to see anything bright, but 2014 proved Hazell has a chance to succeed. Improvement with a team full of sophomores and juniors could mean exciting things for a 2016 team loaded with juniors and seniors.